Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amdahl!rtech!jeff
From: jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.motss,net.flame
Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography
Message-ID: <649@rtech.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 22-Sep-85 04:00:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: rtech.649
Posted: Sun Sep 22 04:00:44 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 10:17:20 EDT
References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <1625@ihuxl.UUCP> <11317@rochester.UUCP>
Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA
Lines: 54
Xref: linus net.women:7005 net.motss:1818 net.flame:11106

> 
> This "leads to" argument, as in "putting any restrictions on porn
> leads to censorship", is bogus.  There is no "leads to", only "comes
> from", as in "legal rights come from moral rights".  (It's under-
> standable, of course, how hackers might not see this.)  And thus
> legal responsibilities, which seem not to exist w/r/t porn, but
> certainly ought to, derive from moral responsibilities.  Responsibility
> is not proscription.

"There is no 'leads to', only 'comes from'"?  While I might agree that
the "leads to" argument has holes in it, I can't believe that there is
no such thing as cause and effect.  What's more, it's hard for me to
see how you don't believe it either.  I think you made this statement only
because it was an effective antecedent for the rest of your argument.
Pardon me if I find this dishonest.

> I personally believe that a lot of porn is, for lack of a better term,
> libelous.  I'm appalled at how many net-folks scream "my rights,
> my rights..." ad nauseam, but have no concept that they might have any
> analogous responsibilities.  I thought that ethical egoism (the notion
> that I ought to do what's best for me, period) was provably morally
> bankrupt by the 2nd week of philo. 101.  Now, these folks have almost
> no legal responsibilities, though they piss and moan about even
> those few, but they do have moral responsibilities--even to people they
> don't know.  Fortunately for the ethical deontologist, 10,000 angry
> hackers shouting "Well that's just your opinion!" does not make it
> false.
> -- 
> ken perlow       *****   *****

I am not only against censorship of pornography, I am also against censorship
of Nazi hate literature, even though I am Jewish.  Please explain to me why
I should not find the above argument insulting.

One of type of argument commonly used in favor of censorship of pornography
goes something like this: "Pornography portrays women in a degrading manner,
thus encouraging misogynistic attitudes.  These attitudes harm women and
society as a whole.  Therefore, pornography should be banned, so that people's
attitudes towards women might improve."  I find this form of argument arrogant. 
It contains the attitude that no one should be allowed to believe that which
I know to be false, and that I have the right to use coercive means to prevent
this.  There is always the seed of a possibility that one could be wrong.  I
would like to see the people who advocate a ban on pornography admit this.

I agree that the portrayal of women in a degrading manner is immoral (although
we might disagree on how much most pornography degrades women), but I don't
agree that anyone has the right to ban any sort of expression he or she thinks
can lead to attitudes or beliefs that are dangerous.
-- 
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
"Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..."

{amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com